Does not sound or look better to me at all. More convenient, yes. But not at all better quality.
I never scan, only print optically to get the best from negative film.
I find that this is only really true when viewing slide film thru a loupe, as the best digital cameras today readily outperform film scans.
but you can do things with digital that are impossible with film.
but I'd still like Kodachrome back; at a reasonable price and in 120 please! *dreaming*:-D
I'm obsessed with high iso performance. D5, 70 to 180 micro nikkor zoom, f 16 1/500th iso 80,000+, close ups of my cats. Amazing.Other than the "instant" convenience of it, I can't think of one thing it really does better, unless you are obsessed with high ISO performance.
I have a darkroom, and if i want a picture made from my Negs, it is silver gelatin, usually 8x10, that i make with my Beseler Enlarger.Gelatin silver prints were considered an alternative process for the massive alternative process photography exhibit at the Lonsdale Gallery at the Photrio Symposium organized by Bob Carnie in Toronto this past summer. Surprising perhaps, but I think it reflects today's reality. Despite the posturing around here, how many members actually have a darkroom and regularly make wet prints.
I have a darkroom, and if i want a picture made from my Negs, it is silver gelatin, usually 8x10, that i make with my Beseler Enlarger.
But for me, The Whole Point of shooting film is BECAUSE i can then use my darkroom.
Film is definitely not for everybody.
It has nothing to do with anything being "better".....it just a matter of enjoying one process more than another. They are two different things.
I have an Instructor in my department that has been teaching film for 45 years at the school. The number of sections of his basic film class have gone from 5 in 2009 to 1 in Spring 2019. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he cannot fill classes.
The proper viewing distance for that 20x24 Polaroid is abut 7 feet. The closer you get the more of the "technological limits" we see. It is unlikely that we would see much difference in acuity. Certainly, we might see styles of tonal range, dynamics and such but not sure what else to expect; we can't see such a difference in "grain/pixels" at a proper viewing distance.Imagine viewing a shot made with Adox CMS20 II on that thing!
So you are sold on the mechanics of the film process: relative densities of silver shaped by specifically managing light during capture and some pretty general manipulation of light through dodging/burning, specific and general temperature and chemical values and paper varieties. Going back into my files I have some pretty elaborate dodging and burning masks that look for all the world like cucoloris; what a nightmare.
Left behind were glass negs, and silver/pewter plates as superior methods were introduced. The hue and cry of users of those "arcane" media parallels today's from film users. Statistically, as late as 2002 with a billion rolls used, 98% of film was utilized by the general population and most of that was C-41. The ramp-up from computers to digital cameras and camera phones, by that 98% of shooters, gutted film use. As such, film is, statistically, an alternative process; an artifact of the evolution of photography. Film folk do not want to hear that.
I have an Instructor in my department that has been teaching film for 45 years at the school. The number of sections of his basic film class have gone from 5 in 2009 to 1 in Spring 2019. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he cannot fill classes. I have another Brookie who had his own BW lab in Oakland which suffered the typical demise as digital capture gained prevalence. He teaches two Pro classes, ANY WAY HE WANTS!!!, but uses no film in any assignments and no one uses film. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he teaches Pro without it!
That is a pretty weird system of denial. I point that out and I am the department film-killer. Don't shoot the messenger.
Film and gelatin silver printing is now an alternate process. I have no problem with people practicing that craft. I do it myself, along with other hybrid and digital processes. What I don't get is shooting film, having someone else process and scan it, putting it up on Instagram, and making claims as to authenticity.
I appreciate your years of practice; this kind of anecdotal data evolves into a solid base of information. I have a similar experience in other venues and it is hard to deny one's accumulated experience. However, given the pool of shooters and their proportions regardless of how you feel about it, film is an alternative process.I base my view on my own darkroom work and knowledge of how digital images are produced and 18 years of experience as a color corrector of both film and later digital images in a lab that convinced me that qualitywise there was absolutely no advantage of digital over film other than its quickness.
Film photography is the oldest medium, and tried and true compared to digital which still has problems that must be overcome to assure consistent, quality images compared to film. I have seen it with my own eyes over and over. That is why digital to me is the alternative process, not film, despite its convenience and use.
Of course you can avoid all this by shooting RAW. Why any serious photographer would rely on jpegs is beyond me. I doubt many do.Yes, you can avoid this by working in RAW and appropriate software but then there goes your convenience over film.
Of course you can avoid all this by shooting RAW. Why any serious photographer would rely on jpegs is beyond me. I doubt many do.
Seriously?I doubt if many digital shooters here at Photrio shoot and work with RAW.
I guess I give Photrio members more credit than they deserve then.Yes.
I guess I give Photrio members more credit than they deserve then.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?